This file archived at UnionOfEgoists.com. This file archived at UnionOfEgoists.com. Union of Egoists ThisThe item information was scanned that by followsUoE from was Libertarian downloaded Microfiche from the Pub - UnionlishingEgoists OfPeace Egoists. Plans films. The sourceJohn Zube’smaterial LMP mightproject havepreserved been The information that follows was downloaded from the gatheredthousands from of documents an existing that archive would orotherwise produced be lost.by an Unioneditor Of Egoists. or a direct The contributorsource material to the might project. have been Moregathered information from can an be existing found at archiveour website or underproduced “contributors.” by an -Kevin I. Slaughter What is aeditor UnionOfEgoists.com? or a direct contributor to the project. This is an informational resource provided by Kevin I. Slaughter of Underworld Amuse- Whatments andis a Trevor UnionOfEgoists.com? Blake of OVO, initiated in February and publicly launched April 1st of This2016. is The an informationalwebsite initially resource focuses onprovided providing by Kevinhistorical, I. Slaughter biographical of Underworldand bibliographical Amuse- mentsdetails andof a fewTrevor their Blake favorite of OVO, Egoist initiated philosophers. in February It is also and integrating publicly launched the archives April of egoist1st of 2016.website The i-studies.com, website initially the formerfocuses projecton providing of Svein historical, Olav Nyberg, biographical and the and EgoistArchives. bibliographical detailscom project of a few of theirDan Davies.favorite Further,Egoist philosophers. it will be home It is toalso Der integrating Geist, a Journal the archives of Egoism of egoist in websiteprint 1845 i-studies.com, – 1945. UnionOfEgoists.com the former project will of beSvein the bestOlav resource Nyberg, for and Egoism the EgoistArchives. online. com project of Dan Davies. Further, it will be home to Der Geist, a Journal of Egoism in printWhat 1845 is a – Union 1945. UnionOfEgoists.com of Egoists? will be the best resource for Egoism online. “We two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this What“human is society,” a Union I sacrifice of Egoists? nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it com- “pletelyWe two, I transform the State andit rather I, are intoenemies. my property I, the egoist, and my have creature; not at hearti. e., Ithe annihilate welfare it,of thisand “humanform in itssociety,” place the I sacrifice Union of nothing Egoists.” to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it com- pletely I transform it rather into my property and my– creature; Max Stirner, i. e., The I annihilate Ego and Itsit, andOwn form in its place the Union of Egoists.” What is Egoism? – Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own “Egoism is the claim that the Individual is the measure of all things. In ethics, in episte- Whatmology, is in Egoism? aesthetics, in society, the Individual is the best and only arbitrator. Egoism “Egoismclaims social is the convention, claim that laws,the Individual other people, is the religion, measure language, of all things. time andIn ethics, all other in episte forces- mology,outside of in the aesthetics, Individual in aresociety, an impediment the Individual to the is libertythe best and and existence only arbitrator. of the Individual. Egoism claimsSuch impediments social convention, may be laws, tolerated other butpeople, they religion, have no language,special standing time and to allthe other Individual, forces outsidewho may of elect the Individualto ignore or are subvert an impediment or destroy to them the liberty as He can.and existence In egoism of the the State Individual. has no Suchmonopoly impediments to take tax may or beto toleratedwage war.” but they have no special standing to the Individual, who may elect to ignore or subvert or destroy them-Trevor as HeBlake, can. Confessions In egoism ofthe a StateFailed has Egoist no monopoly to take tax or to wage war.” -Trevor Blake, Confessions of a Failed Egoist Atft J "'• ~ace~ • MINUS ONE .,., .,..-.. tc.~ .. GIIk ., ~- ,....~ ;,. ,, .,..,.. on 7rCfJI5t r?Vtfzw !j~. 7-~.
J e 1967' Ninepence IWTHijfR EAST NOR :®T 1
In the countries of the so-called free world life is insuff er- t able. The liberals and democrats praise these countries and say that in them there exists the opportunity for private initiative · and oconomic and political competition. But this is not so. Tlu~re aro marzy different points of departure for the individual and if I go hunting vri th a bow and arrow and you have to catch your bird w hare w1 th your bere hands then it is certain that I will t and you, ven if you have superior quelities to mine, will go hUJ'lbry. Nor will you bo able to tako J'Jf:l arms ( ey cepitl\3.) ~rorJ n:e, becftuse the herd of rich and poor are W1i t~d in their int ntion of imposing respect for the lavt upon you or anyone els4io who would viole.te the sacred rir.:ht of , priv2te proPQrty ( uhich has i tsel:f ~.ris~n through th€: use of . violence or cwming). I:f you try to do this they rill kill y~u or t~1 you into prison. Property? Yes, but not the natural, egoistic, "Stirneri~" propf:rty o:f the i ndividu~~ ~Tho · SQizes Md ka ps 211 thet his po er pe ts him to tf\! e. Rether thi; p:a.--cperty of the hypocrite who has snatched it vri thout being s en cmd then presents it s the :fruit of his 1 ""bour whiC-h is · guarant~~ es inviolAbl~ by society ~nd morality. And m2~ aliJ:V priests unctuously repeAt th _t a non-existent god, \'lho, if he exist d, would be responsible for P~l the torments of t h se he hP.d cra~ted, wills this to b6 o.
" h e li in the stern wo~ld? Yes, fr~dom for the rich to be , happy, ~or the poor to suffer - or to d in prison i:f1 re.ther thM suf'ter t. t ey try to take enything from the rich. A . disgusting rre om! Then thae is the coJDim.lnist world - e gAlley of slaves condemned to forced l~bour in which the lend belo s to the St~te :hich, in theory, stands for the orgMized ID.P.ss, but which, in prectice, is identified vdth the demagogues, the bure~crate and the ~~Y le~ders who hold th6 pow~r. And the StP.te, th~t Nietzsche justly c ~l~d "the coldast o:f P~l monsters~ compels men ~nd women to produce, exploits them as the sole cepitalist, Bivas them P. ~nimum of WQbes, denies thQI!l the possibility of going on strike or using other mana to better their lot, Md puts them in concent ration camps or prison if' they refuse to edapt thems~lves to this blood- suck ssstem of oppression.
In the bolshevik he-ll the ind vi
A THOUGHT OUT OF SEASO
'/hat can one make of so-called anarc.~1.1sts who demonstrate in favour of archiet regimes This was the case in Grosvenor Square, Londoll, on li~ch 171 196 • The Vietnam Solidarity Campaign had called a demonstration on that dey in support of Ho Chi an ond his mob. Up tumed our e~er camptti~ere :for "freedom" to get their heads cracked and themselves arrested in the cBUSe of soliderity t a gang of eo at cut-throats! If the Object of the demon&tretion were ever attained and the Viet Cong cc.>.me to power P.mong the first victims would be enyo e who d&monstrAted eg~inst the authorities. And there some who talk of c~pit e~iets eing their own grav diggers! Two regulAr contrib to a t o "Freedom", John Rety And Wyn:ford Hicks, trie to jus ify th~ se entice on the rounds that when "the people" er on e streets end in eo ct wi h "a1thority" then the place of he enerchiet is with em. Do this apply if they t the suppression of free speech, jew or ~m.archist e? Thi blind belief that "the pecple" era the incP.~tion of irtue ~ores e fact that "the people" h~c supported every oppressive regime knovm to historiMs. But no doubt our populist U{Ystegoguea h!We in mind some ideQliztr$ , nvth!c;U "people" that, like the equally Jeythical. "re olution.ary prol ter!at", can do no wrong, even when negating the individuc\l in the ame of "f'ree 0 go s of Hipp 1' s, S1ls-Maria1 ArcolA smd ·onmartre, eo"Be out from your shadows - the le on the • The qeotii' s freedom ie not treedoml S.E.PARKER Freedom is the 1 to be responsible for onQ&e~. Nietzsche. 0060 3 ~PROTEST: IS IT ANARCHISM? ~.Parker' a article " ' em.ies of Society" - published in "Minus One", number 20, as an open letter to the Editors of "Freedom" - was a brilliant oxposition of the oase for "p&rmanent protest"; but it made me wonder wheth Park~r is right in classing pe:rman t protest as "indivi ualist anarchism". Individualist it may ell be; but is it really anarchism? Is Parker himse-lf, str!ctly apetlld.ng, an anarchist? Let me briefly recapitulete his e~icl~. Pe.rker began by pointing out that "Freedom", ever since it first app ared in 1886, has constently stressed the need f'or R social revolution; this revolution is to be brought ebout by the direct action of the workers and peasants - the IDQaaae; and 1 t is seen as the only practiceble meAA.s of creating ~ new, free, ane.rchist so iety. So ial salvation through socie~ revolution - th~t PArker showed, has e~ways been tho great hope and Aim of "Freedom", the main theme of all its propaganda during the :tat eighty . ears. But what - he went on to ask - hes •!Freedom" got to show for ose ears of ~ a? )?recticall.:;y nothing. Tras, since 1886 there eve a ctue~ly been, n varl.ou8- pe. :r-the worldt a number o so-eb>~· revolutions; but none of them !2S led to a rree society; end euthoritarian socie~ systems, of one kind or another, still flourish practically ever,ywhere. It seems, then, th~t "Freedom" hP.s f d.led. The rwe.sona for th~ f .1 of "Freedom" - Perker went on to argue - are twofold. In the first place, direct action, to bG effective against the wall-organized for ces Qt the dispos~~ of a modern State, must itself be w&ll-orgenized; but in the words of Simone Weil, ''organized e.ction almost eutomatically secretes en adDdnistretive apparatus which, sooner or leter, becomes oppressive"; so that in no circumstances could the direct action of the masses ever le~ to e free society Secondly (end this is thG more important ree:son), the masses as such 2re just not inte~sted in cr~eting a :f'ree society; they never have been interested - even when actuP~ly engaged in trect ection- Rnd they never will be interested. All they really wPnt is security, not freedom; Md if they evar tum against one master it is only - as Eric Hoffer contended - in order to get a str r er ~ chis t ideas, Recording to P~~er, are the property of an · tesimel minority of intellactunls; t his will elw~ s be t e cAs e ; and therefore t he vmole concept of A free society 1 /J tot y e1i tic. Parker concluded that anarchists must alw~s be enemies of society - insofar as " s ociety11 means "an organized collectivity having one basic norm of behaviour". Between society, i that sense, and the t}:'Ue anar hist - whose only essential concern is with "ego -sovereignty" - he sees an inevitable and everlast conflict of interests. The true anarchist, i n Parker• s view, must recognize the existence of that conflict, and accept the role of a "permanent protester": that is, he must abandon hope of soci al sal.vat ion - cither through social revolution or through "the progr~ssivc ravelation o~ graduai ightenmcnt"; he must regard existing eoei&ty as a permanent eD.all\Y, which can to some extent be reaistedt but can never be finall~ defeated or radically /7 changed; ~ he must make himself - hie living ego n - the . "bedrock 1't Of, hiS l~fe. - H.tf t"'":.t ~f J•C'$~ t wr'tf1 t-"-J:U<~I''f 1 ~~,.;~.,.#el ~e.J& ~ , ...... h.u ..... ,.. .1£\IW~'t"'~ . ~o"'s- a.t.C,ow~'), '"' c~r c,;ef'lf!S .U,ey ,.,.~ t:tlrCltdy w,'fle(y pr 0061 4 abo, ish al.l organized government, la s and machinery :for law \ enforoeme!lt." I o , does Parker share that belief? Evidently not: he I'e6ards existing soci ety - based as it is on government, laws, and machinecy for law-enforcement - as a permanent and fundamentally unchangeable enQJey; and the fact that he regards it as an oncll\Y in no w detracts from the :fact that he regards it as permanent - and unchangeable. Do~a Parker aim at suc 1 a stateleas, society, or ~~visage such a social order? On the contrary; according to him, the true anarehiat must Qctual.ly abandon all such aims and visions as tot ally unre a~listic. The Encyclopedia l~ricana (1959) begins its article on anarch ism as . ~ollow.s:- "h.narchism. •••• a theory of social organization. Its doctrines / reprbsent the extPeme of individualism. It looks upon all law and government as invasive, the twin sources whence :flow nearly all the evils existent ln society. It therefore advocates the ti f all r;ov as we tod unde-rston term_, ·" e that or g a ng in voluntary co-operat on." Parker would agree, presumably, that anarchism"represents the extreme of individualism", and that oll aw and governTUent Brf: 11 1 "invasive ; but would he therefore advocate the abolition of government "sav~ that originating in volWltary co-o~ation"? No - for, to him, that would mean advocating the impassible. Nor would he agree that archis s "a theory of social organization": to him, anarchism is exclusively concerned with the individual as such. Except insofar e.s j.t is the permanent enemy of all existing soci al systems, Parlcer's anarchism has no b nG on social organization at all. "Anarchists1 " the !mericana continues, "do not conceive of a society wi tnout order, but of an order arising out of the lQW 4t of association, preferabbly through self-governing groups, for it 'lDiaY be said t hat, with here and there on exception, anarchists re d mBU~i d as gregQrious. •our obiect is to live vrlthout go ernrnent and wi out low, • said Elisee Reclus, the emin t geographer, and in his dey the leading anarchist of FrMce..... Parker, I ·1ould illl.8oei.ne, would repudiate any talk of a "law of association", whether that law wa thought to govern relations between broups or between non-gresarious individuals: as far as Parker is concerned, the only"la\t" is that of his own "sovereign ego". Nor doe& Perker conceive of any kind of society -with or wi t~out order - apart from the trod£tionol., aut ori tartan kind. Nor is his objevt "to live i thout government end v~i thout law": rather, it is to live in a state of pern~ent, defensive war agains~ them - a distLicti on of some importance. And so one could go on. Everyman' s Encyclopedie says: "Anerchis , ~ may be defined as the negati n of governme tt~~1,~e~s~a~~~~:-- soc1et \'d. haut central government, end in c inoividtle:L ';) autono~ s allo\ved its fullest devel ownerr n • there never can be sudh a etate o! society, according to Parker. Paul Eltzbacher, in his well-known book "Anarchism", concluded that the one l co~n feature of all anarchist doctrines is that the~"negate 0062 +c..eJ ~>J A--" ~~ 7~ · ~ '--t. v;.._, 5 ~~~~ the State for our future"; but Parker makes no sueh negation, and ~1.~' rather, to affirm the State for ou future. George Woodcock, .Uf£-L8 book n Anarchism" l definesw.en rchism as *a" f social thO~~t aim:ing at f'una. the structure of soc ty- and particularly ':;:; -ror this is the common element Uh!:Ung all its forms - at the repl ACQ'Nfit Of ttxe atitfiofi feflan ~ eome ..form ot non-governmental co-o~eration between free individuals"; but no aaeh l'eplac!ment of thetati c&tl possiblY occur, according to Park:eri and anarchism~ as he conceives it, seems to be a system of tL..& indiviaual, rather than social -thought. .j-1 a.c « ._( --..~.:r · /1# . ~..I ,, £...~~ -· t4,~h C ;..rr:..~·- The fact is~ I think, that S.E.Parker' s eon ption of anarchism --z. would not correspond to a single a definition o-r , anarchism that has ever been fo • true that some elements in his position c rreapond to thrf def'lnitions I ha:ve quoted: take, for example his eriticiem pf the existing soci al structure, and his ~~asls on individual autonouw. It is also true that not every definit on of anarch1sm1 however authoritative, has to be accepted without question: the Encyclopedia Americana, for instance, is wrong in implying all anarchists believe in a "law of association" - Max Stirner, for one, did not; and there are several issues on which I would side with Parker against the defin -itions. But, even when such allowances have been made, the definition& still show one thing pretty clearlY: a belief 1n the practicability an desirability of some kind of radical transform ation of existing social sys tems is an essential part of any fora of anarchism; and thcrefO-ro Parlcer' & position, which denies the practicability (though not, ind .d, the desirability) of any such transforcation, cannot be strict~ classed as anarchi~ It might be argue~ on Parker's behalf, that even if his position cannot strictly be called anarchisc, this is not a very scrioua matter• .After all, Park~ hmself, by cal.ling his position "individualist-anarchism" 1 perhaps ~cans to show that it differs in sone important wa;y from anarchiso in th true sense; and, in any case, what really oatters is not wheth is position is anarchiso in the true sense, but whethee it is valid. If Parker is right, and the idea of transforming existing social systems is quite unreal -istic1 anarchism in t he true sense is a waste of tine, __cmd we night as well admit it; but if we still want t go on resistJ.ng the encroachments of the State and governmental society (which is a perfectly reasonable policy, even if we accept the in~tability and pernanencg of "th establishnent" ), then we must, in practicG, come roun4 to something like P cr' s position - vlhatever it should strictly be callod. These points are well taken. But, in the first place, Parker does 11.2.1 use the term "in vidualist-anarchism" to show· that his posi tton differs from anarchist:\ in the true sense; on the contrary, he maintai.ns that all true anarchism is necessarily"individualist~ (In his vocabulary the term. " divi dualiat-anarchisn" is logically similar to such expressions as "round circle" - a mere pleon.m; and he justifies his use of this p1eonasn on the grounds that he needs it to distinguish true anarchisn - ·his own - from the false variti es propagated by others.) Secondly, it is surely a serious matter, how ~er valid Parker• s position nrl.ght b91 that he presents it as anarchiST.l - indeed1 as the only trua fom of anarchism - when really it is not anarchisn at all; for such a total llisnooer could lead to a great eal o~ c sion and misunderstanding. &t whero, th , it may be asked1 has Pamer gone vrrongi What pr isoly has c s ed hiln to label. his position in such a mis leading ~ Th snav1er a to be found, I think, on the last page of LE AMIS DE JUl.aES BONNOT meet every fortnight in Chelsea,London. X Those will to attend are askod to contact th m any Sunday night at The M s of Granby, Cambridge Cil'CUDt Lon on, W.C.2. Or write to tliem c/o 44 Stanhope Gardens, Lonoon, s.-·1. 7. 0083 _, ; ; 6 his article. 'lbere, addressing the editors of ''Freedm", he writes: "The trouble is that what you call 'anarchism' is at best merely a hodge-podge, hal.fwey position precariously suspended betle-reen ocial.ism and anarchism. You yearn for the egoerov reigr«y, the liberating individualism, t is the essen~e o~ anarchism, but remain captives of the democratic-collectivist-pr oletarian Dtrth o~ aoci~ism." No 1 t is true thJ(t anarchism (as defined by, eay, the Encyclopedia Br1tannica) is b~d by ma1\Y o-r 1 te supporters upon purely ociali~ principles, with "Which anarchism has no necessary cormect ion; and 1 t is also true, I would esy that the only valid :form of anarchism has nothing wha:t er to do th socialist principles. But the idee of abolishing existing social systeos, end replacing them with a radically different kind of hucan relationship ia not ~ purely aocialist idea: it is an essential element in toth socialiBI!l end all :torms even the Stimerite foM - of anarchism. ( ax Stimcr, Park • iel. hero believed " oists" e h r o which could replac all existing soc 81 systens.. Moreover, o -describe "liberating individuali-sm" as "the essence of anarchistl" is surely an over simplificntio • It Ul.BY be true that all :forms of anorchisn spring ~m a yearning :!'or "ego-sovereignty"; but unless, in add.ition to a that yearning, there is some hope of seeing a new kind of social • environnent - in which "ego-sovereignty" would be enjoyed by all - there is no ana.rchis!!l in the strict sense of the word. The fact is t hat S.E.Perker has rejected eqery idea. of social chango, not just the "democratic-proletarian-collectivist" idee; and in • doing so, he has thrown out the anarchist baby vd th the socialist bathwatC)I'. But since his definition of anarchisn is over- \ . simplified1 and sinco it is ho who has really confusocr anarchiso with social.iSJll, the absence or th~ baby h s g4me unnoticed; or rather, Parker has mistaken something else for the baby. Permanent protost, then, is not anarchiso. But the question remains: which is ri htt Are the permanent protesters actually as realistic as they clain to be? Or i s there - despite e:l.l the depressing historical evidence adduced by Parker - some reasonable hope of e great, radical, anarchist transformation of existing soc.iol systems? Let us now take 8llOthcr look at Pa-rker's position, end try to see just how realistic it is. ~ As we hawe s-een, Parker's position is based on two main arguments. First (as Sinone Weil contended), direct action by the masses would have to be s o well organized, in order to stand any chanco of overthrowing a DOdem State, that that very organization would ine'titably generate new forms of authoritarianism; and therefore mass direct act ion, even if it succeeded in overthrowing the Sttrte, could never leed to a free society. Secondl;y, (as Eric Hoffer contended), history shows that the masses, m any case, have nev r really wanted a free society; and therefore, again, evon if mass direct action destroyed one authoritarian social system, it is virtually certnin thet the only outcome would be the formation of another. Ro , the question I would ask' here is this: evim if we admit that both those arguments. ere foolproof, do they really validate Parker' position as a permanent protester? That i , do th~ really show that no radico1 soeial change - in · particul~, no great! universtll ehango from author! to.rian to libertarian human re.lationsh ps - is practic able? The answer, surely, is o. For Parker (oddly enough for a professed individualist) only discussea the potentialit.ies of organized, collect ive, mass action; he never considers e potentialities of a tot8J.ly different kind of actio - the spontaneous, Wtorganized action of the indiv.id al. as such. 0064 7 (And a1 though he values Stirner, he never entions ' timer~ s useful distinction between "revolution", or &"1 amed rising of the masses, and- what Stirner himself favoured - "insurrection", or a rising or "getting up" of individuals.) Parker makes a very good case, I vrould say, ac;a.inst the collectivist policies and methods advocated by the ~ditors o:f "Freedom"; but he seems to believe, no less firmly than they do, in the collectivist myth that the individual is powe ~ess - that nothing can be done except by ~e masses. In order to validate his position, Parker needs to prove that individuals acting ae such are just as incapable as the masses - i.e. individuals acting as a mass or herd - of causing a radical change in the nature of human ~elationships; yet he never attempts such a proof. Parker just assumes that the masses, like the poor, vill always be with us: that is, that the vast majority of h~"'l beinBS - everybodJr except a tiny minority of "protesters" - vrlll always be content to be the masses, and never grow out of the herd rnentali ty. Yet the very e.. :istence of protesters shows that some individuals have already gro~m out of the herd-nentality; and if some can do that, why not, in time, everybody? Parker nefer gives any raason for his assumption that the protesters must always reruain a t'.inority;. he n:erciy points out that the masses, "historically and actually", are extrerr:ely authoritarian, and arc composed nainly o:f dull and boorish "herd-aniroals". Well, of course they arc - otherwise they would net Q§. the masses: it is a s~lf-evident fact, for which no historical evidence is needed, that without herd-anin-.als no herd is possibl3. But the q\lestion is, why shculd we accept Parl:::er's basic assumption that thG herd, or the Jr.asses, will al"1ays e with us7 Quite spontaneously, without any bureaucratic organization or directicn, the individual can leave the ra~s of the n~ssss - P.FYChclogically if' not physically - and rely en his own under-Sia"1d,t,1 sM.nding and intuition t.., guiue hirt thr<.'lugh life. That can 1 happen! and doses ha-ppen, all over the world. I f it 0 0es o happen ng and if nlCre and more pe ple leav the ranks, then, in • the end, l'the rensses" as such will cease tc exist: t 1er-e ·Jill only be a number of mature, psychologically autonomous human beings. Moreovar, since natura, autonornou~h~an beings would never create or support an authoritarian Jocial systere, the disappearance of the masses would mean the disappearance of every such system - including all governments, laws, &.nd ~achinery for law-enforc~ent - and the devel pment of libertarian anarchistic hun;an relatic.nships. Thus. it seetr.s that radical social changet without any kind cf n~ss action, but purely through individual action, is perfectly practicable. But - one irr.agin a Parker asJdng - is it likely? Up to now, those individ als who have actually le~t the ranks o:f the ~Bssa have a A ways been an infini tesitr.ally small minority. Surly that proves that the chw1ces of a rr~jority leaving the ranks - let alone ~body - ara so rereote as tc be, fer all practical purpos a, negligible? I do not think sc. That lare,e numbE:rs o:f people shculd gro ., out ef the herd-mente.l ty and reach psychologic&l n~turi ty, may eeere an unlikely development; but in h~an histoi~ the unlikeliest things con happenL and often dt>. Indeed, gre t chnnc;Gs are al!r.ost bound to seem unl1Kely before they take place; and thrcughout histor,y argurr~ts based on the apparent unlikelihood of ~lge could ha-47e been advanced t._, "prove" the i.mpossibili ty of any chaAlge at all. "Up to no\·t," men in neolithic times rrdc.r t have argued, "we have never livsd in com.lTIUilities lurger than Q vil e; ther~fore, the chancgs of cur ever living in larger comMUnities are so remote s to be negligible." Neverthelerss, the city a."ld the city-state arne into being - :fo~s of orsanizati n which, to .the neolithic- . rrdnd. would . have seemed f'Mtastic;. end the mcdem 0065 a industrial nation-etate would have seemed no less fantastic no leas wildly improbable, to the inhabitants. of en ancient city.1 Surely the lesson of history is that hardly anything is impos sible! end thet what almost always happens is - the unexpected. Many anarch sts, I imsgine1_ uld agree th arker that the kind of radical social change tney desire does seem unlikely; but they would not conclude, he does, that it is so unlikel..Y as to bo virtually out of the quest on; r ia there compelling historical or logical reason why they should. There remains, however, one other argument which Parker might use and I think would use, to validate his position (in fact I suspect it is the real basis of his whole outloolc): this ia the argument, or theory t that human nat ure is just notfgood enough. The massea, with thei r hera-mentel.ity and their authori tSrian attitudes, will al.W~Vs be w,., th us1 Parker uld probably say, because by nature .;.. w1 th a fQ honouraDlc exceptions - human beings ere ~gnoble, weak-minded creaturea, incapable of rising to any great heights either intellect uallyt mor ly, or spiritually. To be a member of a herd is easier, less aemanding mentally end psychologically, than to be en independent individual with a mind end a life of one• s owni and even 11' they BUffer f or i t in the long run, human beings a.J..most always take the caey course; for nature has simply not endowed them w1 the breadth of vision, or the nobility of Character, that are needed to choose the more arduous path. e · ell, of course, such a pessimistic view of human natura has been · taken by many philosophers - generally authoritarian philosophers - from Plato ornverds. But its correctness has never been objectively or scientifically proved; and it is herd to see how it ~ be proved. In the first place, such a statement as "..human beings aro ignoble" i s a value-judgement, a matter of subjective opinion, end therefore not amenable to scientific investigation. Secondly, laws ~ of nature ere universal in application: water, for instance, alwavs ? .,:·..,- boils at 166 degrees Centigrade, not just in a majority of cases; ..,.. so if it were a natural law that human nature as such is ignoble, f'"•tt . ho could we explain those occasions, however rare, when human beings displ~ nobility HOW! indeed, could the ver.y distinction betweQll nobility and ignobil ty have come to be made? It may be true that history sho more evidence of man • s folly, meanness, and brutal.1ty, than of his V;"isdom, gcnerosity! and kindness.; but surely, even so, the evidence of his moro des rablo qualities is not neGligible, and should not be overlooked. (For example, in times of emergency, quite ordinary individuals and groups have been known e to displ~ qualities of character, end a degrea of intelligence, that nobody would have thought they possessed.) Surely mankind is still in i te infancy, and we are still so ignorant about huoan natl&re that to 'bike any dcfini te vic'l of it, pessimistic or ( l-11 k~ optimistic, would be - to say the 1ca i - premature. Nor is thoro aqy need f or us to take a definite view- unless, like authoritarian philosophers, we have soi!le political axe to grind. What, then, is the most reallstic cours~ for a libertarian, or an anarChist? Surely it i nvolves neither pessimism nor optimi~ Surely it is just to be a nature., psychologically autonomous individual: doing, within the lilJits imposed by cireumstances, vthate er one rea:lJ.y wants to do; co- operating with others as and when co-operation s~ems expedient; never succumbing to any induce ment or pressure to follo\V tho herd, or to join the ranks of the masses· helping, wherever an opportunity cay arise, and accorting to onela ability, to end tho hole hie-rarChical, authoritBl'ian '2 attitude to life, and making no assumptions about e final outcome - of which ncthi{!g can be known. Apart 1'ro11 his undue pessim:i.Sll, S.E.Parker, it se 0066 9 bas d on the dream of a libert . an mass revolution; he is right to point out tha anarchists must always be enemies of society, in the sense of "an organized eollectivity having one basic norm of behaviour that must be accepted by all" ; and1 above all, he i& right to stress the need ~or the individual - ~f he is to onjoy any reel freedom - to stand on his own feet, psyChologically, and dare to be himself. All those things are very true and very important. B-ut therQ are other kinds of action than mass rc elution (in particular, there is Stirn rite "insurrection"); there are othar forms o~ human relationship than "society • in Parker' scnso (in particular, there is the Stimeri.te "Union of Egois+ " ) ; and there is no known reason why the enj oynumt of roal, psychological freadom s ould always be restricted to a tiny minorlty of the human race. · Of co~--sc, eve so, Parker may well be right in thinking that thG anarchist millenium will never co'ille. But since we cannot be certain, why should ~f:: assume 1 t? Why should we shackle our imagination, deus our best hopes, and confine the possible s.copa of our action wi thL"l purely speculative bounds? In t~1e end, "permanent protest" seems to be littla more than permanent pessimism; d undue pessimism, no less than undue optimism, is surely an undesirable fralile of r.rlnd, an unpromising temperanental basis for realistic and effective action. To be prepared for the worst, to hope and work for t he best, and to let the outco~e s t t le itself - that, urely, is conpletc reali~ ~ DEFEliCE OF SOCIAL Pl!SSJMISM Anarchy and Anarchists Can one call oneself an anarchist, yet not believe in the practibility of an anarchist society? I believe one can; Francis Ellinghan believes one cannot. This question has arisen becaus& the defining of an anarChist has become so bound up with what Ellinghan once calle o the "socialised I!lind" ( '1 Anarchy" , Ney, 1966) that few· can thw.k of anarchism apart from soDe concept of social transformation. This- is becaus~ the socialisad mind maans that "wtC: tend to thi more and more in terms of society as a whole, less and ess in terms of thQ unique human individual. Confronted with any concmic or social problem, we tend to look for a solution which will best enable society to go on functioning, srr~cthly and e cientl y, according t o son:e ideal .plan." As result an anarchist tends to be thought of not as one who negates authority for hireself, but as one who negates authority for everybody, and therefora has to postulate the possibility o~ a future state f affairs in which this universal negation vdll be realized. But bacauso this latter viGW has been accepted up to now by alncst all commentators on anarchism - including son:e dividu alists - I do not see vmy I have to accept it. On the other harm, I do not! as Ellinghan s~ests,. thLJJ.. there ia any necessary contradict on bet~en being an anarchist and bglieving in thQ possibi1ity of a ~engralized anarchy. Because I am p&ssimisti about this possibil1t~, it d~s net ~allow that I hav~ to rule out of court those who are optin:istic. (By ''anarchy"1 in this context, I r.ean the anarchy def~d and defended Dy a Martucci, not the socialis d heaven of a l4alateeta) • 0067 10 Social Change Sin ~ open letter as ad rossed t o the editors of a paper dedicated to the concept of ~~ss revolution, I naturally dealt with the relevance of such a concept to anarchism, rather than with the "one-by-one" concept which is much more to my taste and which would be the royal road to an individualist "order" - if such were possible. But what is desirable is not necessarily possible and t he evidence offered by Francis Ellinehan is n t convincing. Ind~, all the "evidence" he does offer is that since some individuals have seceded from the herd, all can. Of course, it is thinkable that they con, just as itTs thinkable that e11 can become J€hovoh's Witnesses, flat-earthers, poets or dialectical naterialists. Of courset a ~racle may happen, an unknown factor ~ suddenly appear t~m nowhere end act as a precipitate to dissolve the mass into individualities, but I hawo only no short life to live and I am not interested in we ·ering it on odds so long that they are meaningless. Ellingh2Ill is mistoken · believing that I regard existing s o cie~ as pe~t and unchangeable. Societies ~en and do Cliangc, but not/in on anarchist d recrtion. Every change in sociol organization so far has been, in effect nothing but e restructuring of the ruli appa atus. ls I asked the editors of "Freedo ~r." (who have made no reply) : \-ihare i s the evidence that future changes will be different? Evidence- net ho~es •••• Hu.lf.tan ature I do not know what "huir.an neturG" is, :Uthough I c~n guess · somcthing of the "nature" of individu21.s I kl19\'11 or know of, from their way f going on. And what I lmo\·t is thet most peopl behave in such a feshicn as to sho r a merked preference fer submi. tting to authority in one forn: or ancther. It ~~, be the "n2t11r " of some ndividutU.s net to have this praferenco, but t his is cletarly no-c the case with "mosypeople". Agei.n because some do not have this preference, 1t does not f ollcw1 that all c'!o r.a.ot.(Aa for "neturP.l. law" - a n2turP.l l ew is simply the forn.llation of: .ob" erved pheno!nena. If the phenomenon of the preference of the ~as f or s brnission t o authority is one that has be&n r epeeted in ever.y Y.ind of s ociGty so far lcnovm, then it at?y be called a "natur&J. l aw"). The notien of the "ncbility" or "ienobility" of hUJn?n beings was introduced by Ellingham, not by me. I do not se .. whet is has got to do with what I wrote. hnyw9y, it is quite possible f r an authoritarian t c behave in a nvble :nanner (e.g. SpArtacus) vr.lathout ceasing to be an authori tartan. As f or his claim that "rn.anl:indis still in its in:f' cy" - what does this !r.ean? One might just as usefully Sf33 that it was in its senescence. Either view implies ~ teleological attitude which reduces the individual. to nothing. The State, The Union of Egoists, ~d Insurrection. I negate the StatG f or ~self now, not f or everybody in the :future. Only the present is cfimportencc to me al'ld I vrant t o ge.t what profit I can f'rom m anarchv today.. not in some indefini tQ "morrow of the n uti on"""' which· even i t advocates ar not sure will come. CertainlY, a union of eg s not the a~ as a "soci ty". ~ thQ same token, such an be fo~d by conscious egoists wdrthout waiting for any "r <1 ~"social rensf' ~ticn. An ;n~~Qlist anarchist doos not heve to depend on thQ ~zation o~ his i &as before he can live his own life. 0068 • • • 11 To the extent of his power and op o unities he can make his own insurrection against the State and Society - without troubling about the arrangements that ~dll spring from it, as Stirner pointed out. he But if/is concerned 'frl th new n social or ers" and bringing about radical social changes t this end, t hen individual insurrection has to be tailored and ~ d t o fit into the efforts of "all" to reach the cormnon goal of an ideal life. 1 t has, in o~~er wor ~s, to be transformed into social revolution, a process in Vlhich the realization of t he ego is made dependent upon the "realization" of t e "social organisn". S.E.PA.RKER LETTERS. In coD'Uli.enting on my article in Minus One., .o. 20, Mrs Loomis and Mr Pastorello raise soQe interesting and ioportant questions. With Mr Pastorello I have no basic disagreement. I do respect and admire volunt&ry poverty, but I think that it is too much to paint pove1~y in quite such a good. light as does Mr Pastorello. I find that having a :fairly good and regular salary has s omewhat the same effect that poverty seems to have for hio. It gives Re freedon. Besides I ~st admit to enjoying some degree of com:fort. ·a th !~ Loo .Us, though, I find I am in ver--J fundamental disegreeJr.ent. One the one hand, I do adni t the ap eal of tl"e Green Revoluti on to a part of me . One cannot read, for ru>a.ple, Norris "" .e 1s From Nowhere" or Wright's "Islandia" without being affected by the beauty of life on the land (Of course, many aspects of t'1e social and political systeM o:f Islandia are not as appealing) But, on the other hand until our ur~fu! civiliz ation destroys itself through pollution, etc., the econowic systesn draws 11\el'l to the city and t he cities provide l\al1y things t1at exist noVThere Qlse, great music, great art, etc. The basic dis~~eement probably stems :fro~ my belief that any rcvo_ution is dead in the developed coUA."1tries o:f the world. I:f anarc.1 sm ever comes~ which I thi~- is doubtfUl, some will choose to join thg Gregn Hevolution, but evgn under an&...--rchisro it, and the individualist, vroul be in· the position of a r~nority group. Parha.ps I was wrong to say t hat the Gl'een Revolution vtas dcafl, b t at t he saree tin:e I still beliave t1at it is not likely to last. I:f population continues to grow at t e present rata and 1 the cities expand at the present rat e thG-rc vlill soon be li ttlc · land left :for its cootinuod existence. LYl :AU To·. r..:;R SAl G31· T (The folletring letter VIas sent to t he Editors o:f "FreoooJn" appropos of "Black Power", but was not published by there) Dear Comrades, ''L I am surprised to see that there~· no rejoicing in FrGedo~ - by the usual adidring sycophants - over t nost recent victor.y of Black Po\Yer. I refer, of course, to t he houndi.IlB out of Kenya of a lar~ e number of people whose sKin is only a light shade ef brown ~tead of the proper African ebony. This succesa of black racialism nust surely gladden the hQarts o:f all those who revere such figures as Michael Malik and Stolcele.v Camicha~l, and who sotnehow i maginQ that their brand of political bombast has got sorr.ething to do with aoarchism. 24.2.68 TOllY GIBSON 0069 12 lDJ«J.S ONE is edited and published by S.E.Parker, 2i Oreott Terrace, London, ~1.2., England. 67- for ~ issues (1 u.s. o 1.) ii c. post. ]}IDPIECE ••• Now that the cry of "social alienation" is on so many tongues and it is deprecated in so ~~ acadeate treatises, it is a refreshing change to find someone in favour of it. In the Spring 1967 issue of th '1Ncw Individ1vidualist Review" (A journal of classical liberal thought) the editors write: · . I "ThQre is much to be said in defence of social alienation•••••• It is difficult to conceive, for ex8Iilple, the revival of classical liberal opinion towards government without the breeding ground of alienated hostility toward~ 'thvse in p wer'. Classical litlQralism was born in ~ era of aliQOation and hostility towards kings; what chok~(l and almost killed it at the end o~ the century was an optimistic trust in The People and popular govel'lllil?...nt. This trust in government - 'we are the overmaQilt • - is thQ foundation of social democratiso and the welfare state ideal, and if the Right (or Left, maybe) is ever going to succeed in dismantling the deadening hand of the state it might be better to encourQ8.e social alienation." To tak the defence of "social alien tion11 to its lo i cal \ conalusion, however, would lead straight in o the ca~p of individual1.st anarchism. Socialists are wrong when they say that classice~ (i.e. 19th. century) liberalism and individualist ) anarchism ar the sams thing, but it is true that one o:f the easier routes to individualis is through this kind of { lib~ralism. EGOIST Publications received include "La desobeisance civile" b, Henry David Thoreau published by Editions Jean-Jacques Pauvert, Paris and "15-18' by Domenico Pastorello published by the author, 13, Foe sur Mer, France. And "La Caverns d~i Reprobi", edited oy Enzo l'iartucci, Via Carducci, 98, Pescara, Italy. 0 Idios - three ess~s on i ndividualist anarchis~ by J an Pierre Scbweitzer. 1/3 Anarchiso and Individualism by E. Arr.land. 1/3 Individualist Anarchiso - an outline by s.~.Pat.kor. 3d. James J .. · art-~.n is sending a supply of "The Fals~ Principle of Our Education" by Max Stirner for sale for the benefit 0f laNUS ONE. The price to readers o tside the u.s.A. vrlll be 3/6, inc. postage. R~aders in the u.s.A should obtain their copies fron thQ publisher Ralph Myl~s, P.O.Box 15331 Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901, U.S.A. Price 60 cents. Copi s of "The Ego and His Own" by MBA Stirner a~e again available at Freedom Press, c/o 84a Whitechapel High Street, London, E~l. Pric~ 19/-, inc. postage. Apologies are du to E.:1ertran for holding his article over to t e next issuG. The new forma...-t of MINUS 0 '! io limitf:d to 12 p ~es per,iasuo end space is cons9quently li~ited.